Impact Assessment Report: Hebbville Academy

Impact Assessment Report: Hebbville Academy Prepared for the South Shore Regional School Board

September 2012

© Deloitte & Touche LLP and affiliated entities. Assessment for school review: HA i

Table of contents

1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1

2 Approach ................................................................................................................................................ 2

3 Options for consideration ........................................................................................................................ 4

4 Option assessment ................................................................................................................................. 6

5 Concluding remarks .............................................................................................................................. 25

6 Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... 26

© Deloitte & Touche LLP and affiliated entities. Assessment for school review: HA 1

1 Background

This document is an Impact Assessment (IA) Report for Hebbville Academy which will help enable the governing Board of the South Shore Regional School Board to undertake further decisions about the school as part of School Review.

The Education Act of the Government of Nova Scotia, as well as the Ministerial Education Act’s Regulations, describes the formal process that Nova Scotia School Boards must follow when assessing a school for potential closure. (See Appendix A) Once identified for School Review, an Impact Assessment Report must be prepared.

The SSRSB has engaged the services of Deloitte, (‘Deloitte team’) to prepare this report, along with impact assessment reports on other schools currently undergoing School Review. Deloitte contracted the services of Dr. Jim Gunn to work as part of the team gathering information and preparing the reports.

Once completed, the school Impact Assessment Report is tabled by the School Board for review and discussion, and the report is made public. School communities then can establish a Study Committee to respond to the report.

Once the Study Committee Response has been tabled, the governing Board must hold a public hearing, prior to making a decision on the future of the school under review. The decision must be made by March 31.

Hebbville Academy’s Identification Report (ID Report)1 is included in Appendix J for reference. ID Reports are high level preliminary reports designed to help the Board determine whether a school would continue in the School Review process and thus undertake a more in-depth impact assessment. Some of the information contained in the ID report has been included, updated and/or corrected in this IA Report as noted herein as a result of a more comprehensive review of school being performed during an IA Report than is required for an ID Report.

1 A report prepared by a school board (under Section 16 of the Education Act) for the purpose of identifying a public school under its jurisdiction for review


2 Approach

A three phased approach, summarized in the below diagram, was used to aid development of all school impact assessment reports.

Key

Act

iviti

es

• Development of a set of criteria by which to assess each option, informed by the Ministerial Education Act’s Regulations

• Agreement on the options to be studied for each school

• Gathering of background information

• Gathering data and information necessary to assess schools against the established criteria

• On site visits including a meeting with the school Principal

• Meetings with school board staff and municipal or regional officials

• Sharing of the data with School Advisory Committee (SAC) members and principals

• Validation of the data with the SAC

• A meeting with the SAC representatives to discuss the impact of closure on the school community and the community at large;

• Assessment of the options against the criteria

• Writing of the reports

Data and Information The following table lists individuals who were consulted for information and input during the course of completing the impact assessment for Hebbville Academy.

Table 1: Data and Information Sources

Name Title Reason for engagement Jeff Merrill Director of Planning - Lunenburg Municipality Community impact Darren Haley Principal Overview of school Alex Kay Technology Services - SSRSB Technology operating costs Wade Tattrie Director of Finance - SSRSB Operation costs Steve Prest Director of Operations - SSRSB Capital costs Fred Conrad Manager of Facility Maintenance - SSRSB Capital costs Hal Corkum Manager of Custodial Services and Grounds - SSRSB Capital costs Jeff DeWolfe Director of Programs and Student Services - SSRSB Program and specialist

services, PD activities Darrell MacDonald

Director of Facilities Management – NS Department of Education

New school construction costs

Denise Crouse Transportation Coordinator - SSRSB Impact on current bussing

1 Criteria/option development 2. Data Gathering and interviews 3. Analysis and Report writing


system, bell times and transportation costs

Tina Munro Director of Human Resources – SSRSB Teacher staffing Jack MacLeod Human Resources Coordinator - SSRSB Teacher staffing, enrolment

It was the aim of the SSRSB and Deloitte to undertake an approach that was as open and transparent as possible. The SAC’s role was to represent the school and to fact check information and data. Information was shared with SACs at multiple points of the project using email correspondence and an in-person meeting between each SAC and the project team.

After data and information were gathered from the aforementioned sources and distributed as information packages to the SACs, SACs were given the opportunity to respond to each package regarding the integrity and validity of the data and information. Deloitte met with the SAC of Hebbville Academy on June 15, 2012. Items discussed included the contents of initial information packages and the school’s relationship with the community.

Assessment Criteria In developing this report, options for the school have been assessed against a set of pre-determined criteria, based on Section 17 of the Ministerial Education Act Regulations. All criteria contained in the Regulations are included and grouped into 9 categories. These categories are listed in Table 2 below. Individual criteria are introduced in Section 4 and a summarized list is provided in Appendix C.

The approach for assessing options was developed in close consultation with SSRSB’s Superintendent. On June 1st Deloitte distributed the assessment criteria, confirmed by the Superintendent, as part of a data package to SACs and subsequently followed up with a consultation meeting 2 weeks later to discuss the criteria in more detail.

Table 2: Categories of Assessment Criteria

Category 1 Educational program delivery

2 Operational expenditures

3 Capital expenditures

4 Staffing allocation efficiencies

5 Impact on educational staff

6 Student transportation

7 Extra-curricular activities

8 Community relationship and school usage

9 Impact on receiving school

All schools undertaking School Review in 2012 were assessed against the same set of criteria. The results of this assessment are presented in Section 4 which concludes with a summary of the assessment.


3 Options for consideration

The options under consideration for Hebbville Academy (HA) were developed in consultation with the SSRSB and are shown in Table 3. On June 7th 2012 a list of the options under review was released to the public via the SSRSB website and sent to the local media.

The ID Report (Appendix J) for HA mentions changes to Newcombville Elementary School (NES) that might impact HA. However, at the 6th June 2012 Board meeting of the SSRSB, a motion was carried to eliminate NES from the School Review process.2

Table 3: Options

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Status quo

Keep all students in HA elementary building

Send grade P-5 students to a new elementary school

New elementary school for P-5 students of HA, PES and PRES

Move grade P-5 students to HA middle school building

Transfer grade P-5 students to newer HA building thus making it a P-9 facility

In Option 2 and Option 3, the elementary building of HA would no longer be used by students. It would be closed or used for other purposes. One possibility is that it could be converted to office space for the SSRSB regional staff. An assessment of converting the building for regional offices requires a detailed engineer’s report and has not yet been commissioned by the SSRSB. High level estimates are discussed in Section 4 of this report.

The impact of option 2 is given full attention under each of the sections and criteria of this report. This option consolidates the HA elementary, PES and PRES into a new P-5 school with the grade 6 students of all three schools attending classes in the newer 6-9 building of HA. PES and PRES would be closed as a result.

The impact of Option 3 is given some attention in only a few sections of this report because, in some areas of operation, it would have no impact. The only change contemplated in Option 3 is that the P-5 students who already attend HA would attend classes in the newer building that presently houses grade 6-9. This transfer would have no impact on how the staffing formula is applied, on student transportation and on what programs and student services are delivered. Other than the financial impact of operating only one of the two buildings, the measurable impact from an educational perspective is on the class room utilization. Simply, is there sufficient space in the newer building to accommodate the P-5 students and what would be the impact on the 6-9 students already there? The assessment of the financial impact of Option 3 is reported in Section 5.2 and 5.3; the question about sufficient space and classrooms is addressed in section 5.9 under the heading, “Impact on the Receiving School”.

2 MOTION SS047-12 by Judith Sullivan-Corney that the Board remove Newcombville Elementary School from the School Review Process. Motion Carried


Another impact of Option 3 should be noted. There may be of concern for some families having P-5 students in the same building with the 6-9 students. Of course, there will be a period of transition, but the fact that these students are already part of HA and the school community should make the transition easier than if they were from different schools and communities. Many P-9 or P-12 schools have been operating successfully in Nova Scotia and across Canada for many years. Typically, the children in early elementary are housed in their own area of the school and their classroom and daily activities go on quite independently of the middle school grades in another area. This should be possible at HA because the size of the building is large enough to allow some flexibility to locate the various grade levels.

One of the initial options for HA was set aside because it was determined to be unfeasible. This was the creation of a new elementary school to house all P-6 students from HA, PES and PRES. Using the projected enrolments for 2013-14 (See Appendix D), the total P-6 enrolment from the three schools would be 421. Elementary schools of this size are not uncommon, but an enrolment of over 400 is considered large for an elementary school. In this situation it would be unnecessarily large because there is no reason to argue that the grade 6 students of HA should be transferred to another school. These students are already housed in the newer building at HA and, yet, there are unused classrooms in the building. Furthermore, to move the grade 6 students from HA would be contrary to the position being taken by the SSRSB---and numerous other school systems---that grade 6 is a better fit, educationally, with grade 7 and 8 if the contemporary middle school philosophy is to be the model of choice. Thus, for reasons related to school size and underutilized capacity at HA, the option to create a new P-6 elementary was set aside as being unfeasible and not congruent with the move toward the middle school model.


4 Option assessment

Table 4 offers a high level snapshot or profile of HA to provide the reader with some base information and context before reviewing the subsequent assessment across key criteria.

Table 4: School Profile

Hebbville Academy

Total P-5 Building 6-9 Building

Year Built 1967 (P-5) 1997 (6-9)

Additions/Alterations N/A N/A N/A

Configuration P-9 P-5 6-9

Percentage of bussed students 88 95 84

Design Classrooms 36 8 23

Current Enrolment* 538 180 358

Projected Enrolment 2016* 527 167 358

Gross building square footage 83,500 17,5003 66,0004 *detailed enrolment projections are included in Appendix D

4.1 Assessment The following section of the report provides the analysis of the options for HA against the criteria referenced previously. A list of all criteria across each of the 9 categories can be found in Appendix C.

4.2 Educational program delivery The educational programs which must be delivered in all elementary schools in Nova Scotia are defined in the Public School Program, or PSP, an official document of the Department of Education5.

Two of the criteria developed for this series of impact assessments (Criteria 2 and 3) refer to the availability of a range of programming options and the availability of optional programs. The range of programming options refers to the choice of courses for high school students. The term “optional program” is also primarily a high school term, and usually refers to the International Baccalaureate and Advanced Placement programs and French Immersion. French immersion is the only “optional” program that is offered in the elementary schools of Nova Scotia. Early French Immersion is not offered at HA and there is no indication that it would be offered in a potential newly constructed school.

Another of the criteria (Criterion 4) refers to the availability of specialist services. Specialist services are provided in all elementary and secondary schools in Nova Scotia to meet the unique and varied learning

3 Source : School Utilization Study published on January 23rd, 2012 4 Source : School Utilization Study published on January 23rd, 2012 5 Source: http://www.ednet.ns.ca/index.php?t=sub_pages&cat=92


and behavioral needs of individual students. Students who are unable to achieve successfully in the basic program without specialist services may be placed on “Documented Adaptations” (DA) or on an “Individualized Program Plan” (IPP) and gain support or interventions from specialists. For example, a growing number of students who have been diagnosed with a learning disability often require additional support or interventions from the resource staff. All elementary schools in the SSRSB can call on the services of resource/learning centre teachers, guidance counselors and literacy, autism and student behavior specialists---guidance is provided in all elementary schools of the SSRSB and the student behavior specialist support is provided within the resource allocation. The autism specialist support is provided by staff from the regional office.

In the SSRSB, each elementary school receives a resource teacher allocation through the application of the staffing formula, and the specialist services provided from the regional office are available to each school depending on the identified needs of individual students. In smaller schools, the challenges can be greater in addressing the needs of individual students because the resource/learning centre and guidance positions in the school are less than full time. For example, if the resource/learning centre position is only an 80% position and is being filled by a teacher who is job sharing, that teacher is in the school only 4 days per week; this may create problems in dealing with a particular student when the teacher is not present. As another example, a full-time teacher on staff who is serving in a 50% resource/learning centre position and a 50% classroom teacher position cannot be called from the classroom to deal with individual students when situations arise.

Criterion 1.1: Availability of minimum public school program requirements Option Key findings

Status quo The requirements of the PSP are being met.

Send grade P-5 students to new elementary school

The students would receive the same required program.

Move grade P-5 students to the newer HA middle school building

The students would receive the same required program.

Criterion 1.2: Availability of a range of programming options Option Key findings

Status quo No program or course options are offered in elementary schools


No program or course options are offered in elementary schools.


No program or course options are offered in elementary schools.


Criterion 1.3: Availability of optional programs Option Key findings

Status quo No optional programs are offered in elementary schools, other than Early French Immersion which is not offered at HA. Intensive French is offered in Grade 6 at HA. Late French Immersion is offered in the junior high grades.

Although not a formally defined program in the PSP, a special initiative called “Promoting Optional Thinking Strategies” (PATHS) is offered.


No optional programs are offered in elementary schools, other than Early French Immersion which could be offered eventually in a newly constructed school. PATHS would continue to be offered.


No optional programs are offered in elementary schools, other than Early French Immersion which could be offered eventually. PATHS would continue to be offered.

Criterion 1.4: Availability of specialist services Option Key findings

Status quo The staffing allocations for Music, French, Physical Education, Resource, and Guidance are determined through the application of the SSRSB staffing formula. Because HA’s enrolment is over 500, most of the specialist allocations are full-time positions. This allows most specialists to work in their area of specialty, by teaching elementary and middle school classes, without having to pick up teaching duties in other areas or programs.


The combined enrolment of HA, PES and PRES would be 333 according to the projections for 2013-14. Normally, an elementary school of this size has no problem in providing the various specialist services.


The staffing allocations for this school would be the same as the status quo.

Criterion 1.5: Suitability of teaching areas for program delivery Option Key findings

Status quo The teaching areas at HA are suitable for program delivery.


New schools are designed to meet all expectations, standards and codes of the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal so to ensure suitable teaching areas for all program delivery.


The teaching areas would be suitable but the impact on the overall operation of the facility raises questions which need to considered carefully---see Section 5.9, “Impact on Receiving School” for an explanation of the issue.


Criterion 1.6: Ability to satisfy course load preferences of high school students Option Key findings

Status quo

N/A

Send grade P-5 students to new elementary school Move grade P-5 students to the newer HA middle school building

4.3 Operational Expenditures The Finance Department at SSRSB performed a detailed assessment of the options under consideration for HA Elementary School. In completing this assessment Director of Finance worked closely with the following individuals and, where required, members of their departments to assemble the information required:

• Transportation Coordinator – SSRSB • Director of Operations – SSRSB • Director of Human Resources – SSRSB • Department of Education

The following table provides annual property services expenditures for HA Elementary School for the past five years: those costs that are necessary to keep the school operating from a property services perspective. (See Criterion 2.1 below for an explanation of costs included in property services expenditures.) Costs not contained within property services include: management and support costs, instruction and school services costs, student support services costs and major repairs funded from capital accounts by the SSRSB and/or the Province of Nova Scotia. Detailed expenditure information for each year can be found in Appendix F. For purposes of this Impact Assessment the average costs over the five year period were used to compare the two options under consideration.

Table 5: HA property services expenditures per year

2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 Total Expenditures

$86,468 $92,360 $107,529 $99,967 $88,970

Five year average: $95,059

Table 6 illustrates the key cost increases and reductions estimated to result if the HA Elementary School building were closed and all students were transferred to either a new consolidated school or to the HA middle school building, with the latter option resulting in a P-9 configuration. In total it is estimated that the SSRSB will save approximately $77,500 per year in operating expenditures under the new school option and $105,000 under the option to transfer all elementary school students to the middle school building at HA. Please note that teaching staff estimates within this section are based on the staffing allocation forecast provided in Appendix E and do not include the cost of the principal position which is reported separately in Table 6.


Table 6: Estimated impact on SSRSB of transferring students from HA Elementary School to either a new consolidated school or into the HA middle school building

Item Estimated impact Send grade P-5 students to a new elementary school6

Move grade P-5 students to HA middle school building

Reduction in Property Services Costs – at HA (See Criterion 2.1 below) (235,007) (95,059)

Increase in Property Services Costs – at receiving school 263,1087 There would be no

material increase.

Reduction In Teaching Staff Costs – at HA (1,360,883) (1,959,294)

Increase in Teaching Staff Costs – at receiving school 1,182,588 1,959,294

Reduction In Admin Staff (Principal) Costs – at HA (291,031) (257,576)

Increase in Admin Staff (Principal) Costs – at receiving school 133,493 213,078

Reduction In Non-Teaching Staff Costs – at HA (122,375) (37,654)

Increase in Non-Teaching Staff Costs – at receiving school 207,131 There would be no

material increase.

Increase (Decrease) in Bussing Costs TBD There would be no material increase.

Reduction in Principal’s Operating Costs (Supplies) and SAC Fixed Amounts (See Criterion 2.2 below) (5,750) (2,875)

Hogg Formula Sq. Footage Funding Reduction - - 25% (See Criterion 2.3 below) (6,364) 30,100

Hogg Formula Principal Funding Reduction 157,538 44,498

Small Isolated School Teaching Funding Reduction8 143,940 There would be no material reduction.

Small Isolated School Funding Reduction - Additional9 9,804 There would be no

material reduction

Transition Period Funding Offset10 (153,744) There would be no

6 Please note that in order to provide a realistic estimate of the impact of the new school option (option 2), we have taken into consideration the inclusion of students from both Pentz Elementary School and Petite Riviere Elementary School along with those from Hebbville (P-5), and the associated cost and funding differences that result to SSRSB of this option. 7 Costs for a new facility were based on Chester Area Middle School’s actual costs for 2011/12 plus 10% 8 To date, the small isolated school funding is only for calculation purposes. It is not targeted and has had no impact on our total funding. We have no confirmation that this will change. 9 See footnote #8 10 See footnote #8


material change.

Total Yearly Cost Savings (77,552) (105,488)

As well as examining the impact in total costs to SSRSB, the following three items, and thus individual criterion, were examined in further detail.

Criterion 2.1: Ongoing annual reduction or increase in property services costs Option Key findings

Status quo N/A


This option would result in a net increase of approximately $28,00011 in property costs from closing the HA Elementary School and opening a new consolidated school. This is due in part to higher utilities costs attributed to new facilities for items such as air exchange and filtration systems. These operating costs consist of the salaries, benefits, contracted services, supplies, materials, repairs, maintenance and utilities related to maintaining and operating the property. In addition, if it were to be pursued, estimated savings of rent paid for the current SSRSB regional office would be approximately $100,000 annually after year one.


This option would result in savings of approximately $95,000 by eliminating the operating costs associated with keeping the school open. In addition, if it were to be pursued, estimated savings of rent paid for the current SSRSB regional office would be approximately $100,000 annually after year one

Criterion 2.2: Ongoing annual reduction or increase in principal’s operating costs (supplies) and SAC fixed amounts

Option Key findings

Status quo N/A


This option would result in savings of approximately $5,750 from the reduction in spending on supplies and the elimination of a small fixed amount for the SAC.


This option would result in savings of approximately $2,875 from the reduction in spending on supplies and the elimination of a small fixed amount for the SAC.

Criterion 2.3: Implications of provincial funding formula application for each option (Hogg Formula Sq. Ft Funding)

Option Key findings

Status quo N/A

Send grade P-5 students to new

This option would result in approximately $6,400 in additional funding

11 Costs for a new facility were based on Chester Area Middle School’s actual costs for 2011/12 plus 10%


elementary school (revenue) for the SSRSB.


This option would result in $30,100 in eliminated revenue for the SSRSB due to the closure of the elementary school.

In this option, the only effect on the funding formula would be the loss of square footage resulting in the elimination of the above amount from SSRSB funding.

4.4 Capital Expenditures It was determined that in the last 10 years, an estimated $400,000 in capital expenditures have been made at HA. (See appendix G for details.) Recent improvements were considered in determining what future building improvements need to be funded through capital expenditures. Capital expenditures are made from an allotment of the Department of Education's centralized capital budget, as well as from SSRSB's own budget which has a designated amount for capital purposes

To examine capital expenditures for HA, the Deloitte team worked with SSRSB staff, and considered information from the Principal and SAC members, while using the latest school condition study performed by Dumaresq Architect Ltd. in 2009.

Investment required for the school to continue to operate was defined as anything that, if not completed in the next 5 years, would lead to regulatory and code infractions. While some cosmetic upgrades are desirable, staff feel routine painting and repair can be funded from the property services budget for the school. However, the HA middle school building will require approximately $150,000 in upgrades to accommodate the younger students if it were to become a P-9 school. To determine the right solution, an engineering firm would be required to do a preliminary assessment.

Appendix G shows the longer term capital costs likely to be required for the school to remain open longer than 5 years. Substantial longer-term capital costs will be required for HA; however, for the purpose of this assessment, longer-term requirements should not be considered a determining factor for closing the school, given that satisfying regulatory and code related items are the primary requirements to keeping the school operating in a safe and effective manner.

Criterion 3.1: Reduction or increase in short-term capital maintenance costs (This refers to spending required to keep an option alive until another is available)

Option Key findings

Status quo No short-term material capital expenditures required.


There are no short-term material capital expenditures required, there would be no cost savings benefit of closing HA Elementary School.


If HA were transferred into a single building P-9 school by moving all elementary school students to the new building, certain conversion costs would have to be incurred to ensure the space can accommodate smaller children. Approximately $150,000 would have to be spent on items including lowering sinks, drinking fountains and urinals and converting table and chairs and P-4 classrooms to the appropriate size and style.


Criterion 3.2: Reduction or increase in long-term capital renovation or construction costs

Option Key findings

Status quo A substantial increase in long-term capital costs would have to be incurred to keep HA Elementary School open indefinitely. Estimates were obtained for major structures or systems likely to reach end of their life, or need upgrade (electrical system), in the longer term (A list of possible requirements appears in Appendix G). Not all these repairs will be needed, but a significant cost is likely. The SSRSB’s preliminary estimate of long-term costs at HA is approximately $1.15M.


The capital construction costs for building a new school, which would include students from PES, HA and PRES would be approximately $12.9M if built today and that cost would likely increase over time given inflation.

Cost estimates for building a new school were provided by the NS Department of Education’s (DOE) Facilities Management branch and were based on enrolment projections for the three schools combined, which requires a facility of approximately 48,000 sq. ft. to accommodate all students, teachers and non-teaching staff.

Costs for a new school, which are difficult to accurately estimate, are land acquisition costs, assuming the school would be built on a greenfield site, and cost per square foot estimate for construction. DOE cost estimates included $500,000 for land acquisition of an area large enough to accommodate the building and $200/per sq. ft. based on current average construction costs in the South Shore Region.

While these figures represent a fair projection of capital construction costs for this option, a detailed study would have to be conducted in order to accurately estimate total costs.


Closing the HA Elementary School would avoid some potential substantial long-term costs required to continue to meet regulation and code over time (A list of possible requirements appears in Appendix G). However, HA will still require an increase in long-term capital including, but not limited to, upgrades to driveway and parking lot paving.

4.5 Staff allocation efficiencies Efficiencies in both teaching staff and administrative staff allocations usually result when two schools are consolidated because application of the SSRSB teacher staffing formula to the larger combined enrolment requires fewer teacher positions than the schools require separately, and administrative and administrative assistant allocations are likewise reduced. The key findings identified below were derived from an assessment that produced the data on the staffing allocation forecast which can be found in Appendix E.

A note of explanation: The staff allocation data in Appendix E was used to determine the cost increases or reductions reported in section 4.3 (Operational Expenditures). In that section, the teaching staff cost estimates do not include the cost of the principal’s position; it is reported separately. In this section on staff allocation efficiencies, the cost of the principal or administrative allocation is included in the total staffing allocation for each school because, in the smaller elementary schools, the principal’s position includes some teaching duties. In this section, the various impacts on the administrative allocation are also reported separately for greater clarity.


To get an accurate assessment of the staff allocation efficiencies, the staffing levels for Pentz Elementary School and Petite Riviere Elementary School are included because the new school for the P-5 students of Hebbville Academy would include the students from these two schools. In other words, the status quo staffing levels of the three elementary schools need to be compared to the combined staffing for the new school.

Criterion 4.1: Reduction or increase in teacher allocation Option Key findings

Status quo Using the data in Table 11 in Appendix E, the total staffing allocation for the status quo for HA, PES and PRES would be 48.34 FTE’s (34.71+6.77+6.86).


The total for the status quo of the three schools is 48.34 FTE’s. The allocation for the new P-5 school would be 20.55 and the allocation for Grade 6-9 at HA would be 24.61 to give a total of 45.16. Thus, the reduction would be 3.18 FTE’s, the difference between the totals. This reduction includes a principal position.


There would be no change in the staffing allocation.

Criterion 4.2: Reduction or increase in administration allocation Option Key findings

Status quo The administration allocation for HA is 2.75 FTE’s to provide a full-time principal position and 2 vice-principal positions.

The total administrative allocation for PES and PRES is 1.70 FTE’s.


The allocations for PES and PRES would be eliminated, that of HA would decrease to 1.50, and the new school’s allocation would be 1.25 FTE’s (a vice-principal position would be added for the new school). The overall reduction would be 2.95 FTE’s, including the removal of one of the vice-principal positions at HA.


No change.


Criterion 4.3: Reduction or increase in support staff allocation Option Key findings

Status quo HA has 3 full-time administrative assistant positions; PES and PRES have 1 each.

HA has 4.75 custodian positions including a head custodian. PES and PRES each have part-time (0.63) positions.


The positions at PES and PRES would be eliminated; the new school would have 1.75 positions, and HA would have 2 positions instead of 3.

The custodial positions at PES and PRES would be eliminated and the new school would have at least 3 positions including a head custodian position.


No change.

4.6 Impact on educational staff When relatively small schools are consolidated to create larger schools, the impact on staff is described in terms of how the size of staffing allocations have increased, how teaching assignments have changed, how assignments can be matched to teacher qualifications and preferences, and how there are more teachers to share the volunteer duties in extra-curricular and professional development activities. The options under consideration for HA would not result in a major increase in enrolment, compared to the enrolment of HA, that would result in a much larger staff. For this reason, there should be relatively little impact on the educational staff of the HA elementary school regarding these staffing factors.

One potential short term impact should be expected. There would be a period of transition in moving into the newer building with the Gr. 6-9 students and staff, or in moving to a brand new school and getting to know the staff members from Pentz Elementary and Petite Riviere Elementary.

Criterion 5.1: Ability to attract suitably qualified teachers Option Key findings

Status quo There is no problem at present.

Send grade P-5 students to new elementary school No problem is anticipated. Move grade P-5 students to the newer HA middle school building


Criterion 5.2: Teacher turnover Teacher turnover can be measured by the number of teachers who transfer to another school, are on pregnancy or other leave, and by the number of retirees. These in turn account for the number of probationary or 100% term contract positions on staff in any particular year.

Option Key findings

Status quo Over the past 6 years, 6 teachers transferred from HA and there were from 2 to 6 100% term or probationary contract teachers on staff each year. This seems typical or normal relative to the size of the teaching staff.

Send grade P-5 students to new elementary school No problem is anticipated. Move grade P-5 students to the newer HA middle school building

Criterion 5.3: Ability to match teacher qualifications and preferences to teaching assignment

Option Key findings

Status quo Because the enrolment and teaching staff of HA are of sufficient size there is a reasonable level of flexibility to match teacher qualifications and preferences to their assignments.


No change in staffing, so ability remains the same.


Having an enrolment of over 300 students should provide the same level of flexibility and efficiency.

Criterion 5.4: Ability to keep teaching assignments to a reasonable load Option Key findings

Status quo As above, the size of the staff allows sufficient flexibility and efficiency in teacher assignments.


No change.


Having an enrolment of over 300 students should provide the same level of flexibility and efficiency as that of the status quo.


Criterion 5.5: Ability to spread the load of co-curricular and volunteer extra-curricular activities reasonably among teachers

Option Key findings

Status quo As above, the size of the staff helps to ensure that the volunteer expectations are spread more reasonably than in a smaller school.

Send grade P-5 students to new elementary school No change. Move grade P-5 students to the newer HA middle school building

Criterion 5.6: Ability to spread professional/in-service activities Option Key findings

Status quo During each school year, teachers are required be away from their duties and school to attend various professional development/in-service activities or to represent the staff a various meetings, at the call of the SSRSB regional office or by the Department of Education. The teachers on a small staff are under greater pressure to cover these expectations because they are few in number. For example, if the regional office and Department of Education require someone from each school to attend 10 activities or meetings during the year, these are more easily covered by a staff of 25 teachers than a staff of 8. The average cover per teacher per year is much greater in the small school. According to the substitute teacher data of the past 3 years (See Appendix I), the average substitute coverage per teacher per year for professional/in-service activities, which required teachers to be away from their school, is 8.94 days per teacher for the whole school system. Using the same data, the average number of days per teacher per year for professional/in-service activities is 7.81 for the teachers of HA, below the system average. To compare an even larger elementary school, the average per teacher is 6.02 for the teachers of Bridgewater Elementary School which has an enrolment of 485.

This data demonstrates that the professional/in-service activities which require teachers to be away from their school places a greater demand on the staff of a small school to be away from their classroom and school compared to the staff of a larger school.


Because the enrolment of a potential new school will be less than HA, one might expect the average per teacher to increase, but not significantly.


The size of the staff and the expectations on the teachers to be away from their school will not change because of being in one building.


4.7 Student transportation The Transportation Department of the SSRSB has investigated the bussing implications for the option under review. Focus was placed on the impact of the option on student travel time as well as overall costs to the SSRSB. It was agreed by staff that a full and detailed route review of the transportation plan would be required to determine the exact impact on student travel times and costs. However, adequate estimates were made based on transportation data as of June, 2012, current school population numbers and forecasted route changes as a result of the option under consideration. The primary factors for making estimations included current route length, student loads, bus turn around areas, current pick-up and drop-off times and bus capacity. Student travel time was paramount in the estimations as the Transportation Department strives to ensure student travel time is kept to hour in length as per SSRSB Policy 215. (See back end of Appendix B for detailed Student Transportation policy items)

The below information is based on transportation data as of June 2012, current school population numbers and likely route changes as a result of the options under consideration.

Criterion 6.1: Increase or decrease in time/distance on bus for students Option Key findings

Status quo N/A


The site of a potential new school is still unknown, which makes it difficult to estimate the impact on student transportation. Site selection and a complete route review would be required before any estimates could be made.


N/A

Criterion 6.2: Increase or decrease in time/distance for families to attend school activities

Option Key findings

Status quo N/A


The site of a potential new school is still unknown, which makes it difficult to estimate the impact on time/distance for families to attend school activities.


N/A


Criterion 6.3: Impact on bell times: is a bell time change positive or negative in impact

Option Key findings

Status quo N/A


The site of a potential new school is still unknown, which makes it difficult to estimate the impact on current student bell times. Site selection and a complete route review would be required before any estimates could be made.


N/A

Criterion 6.4: Ongoing annual reduction or increase in student transportation costs

Option Key findings

Status quo N/A


The Transportation Department of the SSRSB cannot determine transportation costs associated with these options. To do so, a complete route review would be required and without a definite location of the new school it is impossible to determine the costs of these two options.

The experience of other Provincial School Boards suggests that when integrating new schools into a district there is no material impact on transportation costs, however this is site and situation specific.


N/A

4.8 Extra-curricular activities Extra-curricular programs in elementary schools normally provide a wide range of activities during each school year, including music, drama, art, science or gardening clubs, team sports, fitness clubs, and various other activities offered by staff or community members. A strong extra-curricular program requires a high level of commitment and involvement from the staff and families of the school in terms of both offering/supervising each activity and in raising the financial, material and human resources to support the activities. A strong program brings a school and its community together and builds a sense of school and community spirit which would not exist otherwise. Inherently, schools with larger enrolments, thus a larger community support base, have greater potential to provide or support a wider variety of extra-curricular activities.


Criterion 7.1: Availability of a suitable number and range of extra-curricular activities

Option Key findings

Status quo There is a very strong and comprehensive extra-curricular program for the students of HA. We heard from the SAC and Principal the staff and many highly committed parents are providing the leadership and support necessary.


Based on the experience of other new schools, there is every reason to expect that a strong extra-curricular program will be developed and supported.


No change.

Criterion 7.2: Accessibility to activities for a reasonable majority of students and families

Option Key findings

Status quo Accessibility to activities is related directly to the distances that students and families must travel to the school. The catchment area of HA is of a fairly typical size for rural P-9 schools in Nova Scotia.


Accessibility depends primarily on the location of this school. The impact on some families of HA, PES and PRES could be one of disadvantage or inconvenience, compared to the status quo if they would have to travel a greater distance to access the extra-curricular activities. On the other hand, some families could have less distance to travel because their home is closer to the new school.


No change.

4.9 Community relationship and usage The school review process must consider the impact options under consideration will have on the community surrounding HA. In order to gain a better understanding of how options under consideration may affect the school’s community, Deloitte met with the Municipality (Lunenburg Municipal Planner Jeff Merrill) as well as the school’s SAC. These meetings were aimed at gathering data and information that would provide a sense of community impact of the school.

In our consultations, Deloitte learned that the population in the catchment area for the school is not expected to grow appreciably, and enrolment is unlikely to deviate from the projections of SSRSB staff. We heard from the SAC that the newer middle school building at HA offers an after school program and if students move to another school they would have to come back instead of simply walking across the school yard as they do now, unless other arrangements were made at a new school, for instance.

The potential new consolidated elementary school provides an opportunity to offer more programs and may increase participation in after school programs because there will be more students enrolled. Depending on where the school is located, participation in community related after school events may be easier for some than others based on proximity to the school site.


Criterion 8.1: Level of usage of school for community activities

Option Key findings

Status quo Outside of the after school programs the current level of usage for community activities at HA Elementary School is low.


The transfer of students to a new school, depending on the location, may have a negative impact on some children and their families, by limiting their ability to participate in events that take place outside of school hours due to excess travel time. Families may have to travel longer distances to get home after practices or activities that occur after school, in the evenings and on Saturdays.


There would be no material changes if P-5 students moved in the middle school building.

Criterion 8.2: Availability of alternate sites for community activities already at the school

Option Key findings

Status quo An after school program is held next door in the HA middle school building. The elementary school is not commonly used outside of school hours.


A new facility will most likely have the ability to provide community activities, such as the after school program.



Criterion 8.3: Availability of school facilities for community use

Option Key findings

Status quo The school is available, but the community usage is low.


There would not be much of an effect on the community if the P-5 school were to close, as the after school program takes place next door at the HA middle school and the middle school building will continue to be available as it is today.




Criterion 8.4: Gain or loss in shared services or resources between school and community

Option Key findings

Status quo There is currently no gain or loss as most activities occurring outside of regular school hours take place at the HA middle school, next door. A January 2012 School Utilization Study12 polled key regional stakeholders on potential options for shared use at HA and these stakeholders put forward the following potential partnerships for shared use: After school day care; Garden Club; Nursery School Program; Nurse Practitioners Office; and a Library. However, the opportunities will likely impact the larger HA middle school and have little effect on the smaller P-5 building.


There is reason to believe that some students will lose the after school program if the school is closed. The transfer of students to a new school, depending on the location, may have either a positive or negative impact on some children’s ability to participate in after school programs. At this point, without a potential location, it is difficult to ascertain whether families will have to travel longer or shorter distances to get home after practices or activities that occur after school, in the evenings and on Saturdays.



Criterion 8.5: Gain or loss in benefits to students and school provided by the community

Option Key findings

Status quo There is a gain, or rather a continuity, of the use of the HA middle school located next door for after school programs.


The only known loss would be to the students transferring to the new school, who may find it difficult, depending on the location of the new school, to travel to the HA middle school for the after school program.




Criterion 8.6: Community use of excess space – can space be used in a cost neutral or revenue generating manner?

Option Key findings

Status quo We did not hear of any such plans from our meetings with the SAC and Principal. HA Elementary School is currently operating at near full capacity. Therefore, there is no excess space available for the community to use.


Space in the elementary school building has the potential to be used as board staff offices, thereby saving in the order of $100K in rent per year. (See Criterion 2.1 above.)


If the P-5 students moved into the middle school building, it would open the elementary school for community use.

1 https://www.ssrsb.ca/index.php?view=article&id=502%3Assrsb-school-utilization-report-received-by-board&option=com_content&Itemid=237

4.10 Impact on receiving school There are two “receiving schools” for the options being considered for HA elementary: The grade 6-9 building of HA and a new school to include the P-5 students of PES and PRES. Beyond the assessments already made in the previous sections about each of these options, the main question remaining is whether or not the P-5 students of HA can be accommodated in the 6-9 building. Further comment about a new school to accommodate the 3 elementary schools in new school seems unnecessary.

As indicated in the School Identification Report, the capacity of a school is defined as the number of regular or “design” classrooms multiplied by 25. The 6-9 building of HA was originally designed with 26 classrooms, thus its original design capacity was 650 students (26X25). A comparison of the original design to the present-day use of the facility is detailed in Appendix H.

For some reason, the design did not include a science or technical education room. In a school which houses over 275 grade 7-9 students, at least 1 science and 1 technology education room is not an unreasonable expectation---presently, 2 classrooms are being used as science rooms. Also, 1 room is being used for storage because of inadequate storage space in the building. If it can be accepted that at least 1 of the original classrooms should be allocated as a science room, 1 as a technology education room, and 1 as a storage room, then the number of available classrooms is reduced from 26 to 23. This means that the capacity of the school is reduced from 650 to 575. If it was accepted that the 2 science classrooms are necessary, then the capacity would be 550. (As a point of reference, in most cases, for new school construction there are science labs, technology education/innovation rooms and other specialist areas included)

The total P-9 enrolment of HA is projected to be 519 for 2013-14 and 180 of those are in grades P-5. According to enrolment projections in Appendix D, the total P-9 enrolments for the 3 subsequent years are 522, 527 and 527. The enrolment for the next 5 years appears to be very stable and is below the capacity of 550 or 575. If the elementary building was closed, from a simple mathematical perspective, all the P-5 students could be housed in the 6-9 building, based on the revised capacity. From a much broader perspective, the impact on the programs being delivered is significant.

Presently, what is known as the grade 5-6 wing is not used for classrooms or teaching areas. The use of the 6 classrooms in this wing is presented in Appendix H. Four of the rooms are used for a variety of SSRSB regional services, one is used by the YMCA and for an afterschool program, and two are used by the HA students as a fitness centre and a games room.

There are 8 classes operating in the P-5 building and 1 classroom is being used by the elementary resource teacher. If the elementary school is closed, then 9 rooms would be required in the 6-9 building. But there are only 6 classrooms in the 5-6 wings that could be used if the regional services, YMCA


program and the afterschool program were moved elsewhere and if the fitness centre and games room were eliminated. To find 3 more classrooms, the science rooms, the storage room, and the technology education room, for example, would have to be used. (In a building that has insufficient storage space, it may be unwise to remove some of that space when adding 180 elementary students and their teachers.) If the elementary resource teacher could work from one of the grade 6-9 resource rooms, then only 8 additional classrooms would have to be found.

The loss of the science and technology education classrooms, the fitness centre and the YMCA afterschool program would be definite losses that would have a negative effect on the program delivery and the programs available.

Regarding the gymnasium, music room and other specialist areas, the addition of the 180 P-5 students would definitely add to the scheduling load or pressure on these areas but the loads should be manageable.

Before the P-5 students could be accommodated in the newer building, some alterations or renovations would be necessary. Primarily, it is a matter of converting classrooms, furniture and washrooms to be more “user friendly” for the smaller children in the early elementary grades.


5 Concluding remarks

The criteria, and options, assessed in this report are complex and often inter-connected. There are trade-offs, benefits and challenges to each option presented and the purpose of this report was to examine each criteria and option in depth so as to provide the information necessary for the incoming Board to debate, consider and conclude on the best way forward. In addition to this report, input from the Study Committee is expected to provide yet another vital part of the decision making process for the incoming Board.


6 Appendices

6.1 Appendix A: Ministerial Education Act Regulations13 The Act provides a roadmap for the school review process, outlining the steps the school board must follow in from identification to a decision by the board. Below you will find the sections relevant to this report to provide a detailed look into the fundamental principles and criteria we used to create our assessment of the school.

Section 16 – Identifying public school for review

1. For the purpose of identifying a public school under its jurisdiction for review, a school board must prepare an Identification Report containing data, statistics and any additional information supporting the reasons for identification, including all of the following: a. enrollment patterns within the school region for the current fiscal period and past 5-year fiscal

periods; b. enrollment projections within the school region for the next 5-year fiscal period; c. general population patterns and projections within the school region for the past, current and next

5-year fiscal periods; d. factors relating to the physical condition of the public school, including all of the following:

i. its ability as a facility to deliver the public school program, ii. facility utilization, including excess space, iii. condition of the building structure and systems, iv. costs associated with its maintenance and operation.

2. An Identification Report may contain data, statistics or other information about any of the following:

a. current municipal or Provincial plans for infrastructure development within the school region; b. the geographic isolation of the public school, if any, within the school region; c. factors relating to student transportation to and from the public school; d. proposed development, including residential or economic development, within the school region.

3. An Identification Report must cite all sources of data and statistics and document the methodologies

used in the creation of the report.

[Subsection 16(3) added: N.S. Reg. 164/2010]

4. No later than April 1 or, for the school review period commencing April 1, 2008, no later than April 30, a school board that has prepared an Identification Report must make the report available to the public.

[Subsection 16(3) renumbered 16(4): N.S. Reg. 164/2010.]

[Section 16 replaced: N.S. Reg. 240/2008.]

13 Source: http://www.gov.ns.ca/just/regulations/regs/edmin.htm


Section 17 – Impact Assessment Report

1. On identifying a public school for review in accordance with Section 16, a school board must prepare an Impact Assessment Report in respect of the public school and table the Impact Assessment Report at a public meeting of its members no later than September 30 [2012].

2. An Impact Assessment Report must a. be made in the form approved by the Minister; b. contain the Identification Report prepared under Section 16; and c. outline a comprehensive review of the potential impact of a school board decision to permanently

close the public school that is subject to review, including data, statistics, and any additional information about all of the following: i. the capability of the public school to deliver the public school program, ii. any educational benefits to students of the public school that would arise from their attendance at

another public school, including access to services and programs such as special services, particular courses and extra-curricular programs,

iii. the time and distance involved in transporting students of the public school to another public school,

iv. the ability of students of the public school to continue to access and participate in extra-curricular activities,

v. the impact on any public school that might receive the students of the public school, vi. capital construction planning for the school region, vii. any property services efficiencies that would be gained, viii. the operational and capital requirements arising from maintaining the status quo, ix. any efficiencies in educational staffing that would be gained, x. the extent of community usage of the school over the last year, xi. any alternatives available to the community with respect to facilities available for community or

regional use, xii. any other impact on the community.

[Subclause 17(2)(c)(xiii) repealed: N.S. Reg. 164/2010.]

3. An Impact Assessment Report must cite all sources of data and statistics and document the methodologies used in the creation of the report.

6.1.1 Section 18 - Study Committee

1. A school board that has tabled an Impact Assessment Report in accordance with subsection 17(1) shall establish a Study Committee no later than October 7 for each public school to be reviewed.

2. A Study Committee shall consist of the school advisory council for the public school under review with the exception of the student representatives of the school advisory council.

3. In the absence of a school advisory council, or if the existing school advisory council does not meet the membership requirements prescribed by Section 21 of the Act except for the student representatives, a Study Committee shall consist of:

a. 1 parent of a child attending the public school; b. 1 teacher who is employed at the public school; c. 1 person who is employed as support staff at the public school; d. the principal of the public school; and e. at least 1 and no more than 10 representatives of the community in which the public school is

situated.

4. A Study Committee may appoint no more than 2 students of the public school under review, who may be current members of the school advisory council for the public school, to the Study Committee.


5. Other members of the community in which the public school under review is situated, including school board members, may participate in the Study Committee as observers.

6. A school board shall call the first meeting of a Study Committee no later than October 21.

7. A school board shall appoint a person who is not a member of the Study Committee to preside at the first meeting of the Study Committee.

8. At the first meeting of the Study Committee, the members of the Study Committee shall elect a chair from among the members.

9. If a majority of the members of the Study Committee do not agree on the choice of a chair, . the Minister shall appoint a chair from among the members; and

a. until a chair is appointed by the Minister, the person appointed by the school board under

subsection(7) shall continue to preside over the meetings of the Study Committee.

10. If a vacancy occurs in the office of the chair, subsections (8) and (9) apply with the necessary changes in detail in respect of the first meeting after the vacancy occurs.

11. A chair shall have the same voting rights as other members of the Study Committee only if the chair is elected pursuant to subsection(8).

12. A Study Committee shall prepare a written response to the Impact Assessment Report and submit the response to the school board no later than February 1 of the year following the year in which the school review process was initiated.

13. Before preparing its written response to the Impact Assessment Report, a Study Committee shall conduct at least 1 public meeting.

14. The response of the Study Committee shall include a recommendation about a decision of the school board to permanently close the public school that is subject to review.


Section 20 – Decision by school board 1. After a public hearing under Section 19, and no later than March 31, the members of a school board

shall make a decision with respect to the outcome of the school review process at a public meeting. [Subsection 20(1) amended: N.S. Reg. 164/2010.]

2. No later than 15 days after the day the members of a school board make their decision, the school

board shall give public notice of the decision by posting it on the school board website. [Subsection 20(2) replaced: N.S. Reg. 164/2010.]

3. A decision of a school board made in accordance with these regulations is final and shall not be

altered by the Minister.

4. If a school board decides to permanently close a public school, the school board must permanently close the public school no later than 5 years after the date the decision is made.

[Subsection 20(4) replaced: N.S. Reg. 199/2009.]

5. For greater certainty, a school board may decide to discontinue the school review process in respect

of a public school at any time after identifying the public school for review under Section 16. [Subsection 20(5) added: N.S. Reg. 164/2010.] [Section 20 replaced: N.S. Reg. 240/2008.]


6.2 Appendix B: SSRSB Policy 215 – Student Transport14 The Education Act requires school boards to provide transportation to students: • who live more than 3.6 kilometers from the school to which they are being transported; • who require transportation, irrespective of distance because of special needs, or • if the School Board determines that transportation is necessary.

The Motor Carrier Act section 14.2 requires that the driver of a school bus shall not stop the bus for the purpose of taking on, or discharging, passengers at: • more than three places in 1.6 kilometers (1 mile), or • a place that has not been designated as a loading station.

Student Transportation: 1. Student Travel, pick-up and afternoon arrival times Where possible: (a) Students will be delivered to the school no more than twenty minutes before the first bell and will

board the bus for transport home no more than twenty minutes after the last bell. (b) Students will not be picked up at the bus stop prior to 7:00 a.m. and will not be discharged from the

bus later than 5:00 p.m. (c) Student travel time on a bus will be limited to no more than 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the

afternoon.

6.3 Appendix C: Assessment Criteria Table Criteria Elements Considered 1. Program Delivery 1.1 Availability of minimum public school program requirements

1.2 Availability of a range of programming options 1.3 Availability of optional programs 1.4 Availability of specialist services 1.5 Suitability of teaching areas for program delivery 1.6 Ability to satisfy course load preferences of high school

students (where applicable) 2. Operational

Expenditures 2.1 What are the operating cost differences between options?

2.2 What are the property services cost differences between options?

2.3 What are the differences in the principal’s operating costs between options?

2.4 What are the implications of the provincial funding formula for each option?

3. Capital Expenditures 3.1 Differences in short term capital maintenance costs (Spending required to keep an option alive until another option is available.)

3.2 Differences in capital renovation or construction costs between options

4. Staffing allocation efficiencies

4.1 Reduction or increase in teacher allocation

4.2 Reduction or increase in administration allocation 4.3 Reduction or increase in support staff allocation

14 Source : http://www.ssrsb.ca/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=32&Itemid=63


5. Impact on educational staff

5.1 Ability to attract suitably qualified teachers

5.2 Teacher turnover 5.3 Ability to match teacher qualifications and preferences to

teaching assignment. 5.4 Ability to keep teaching assignments to a reasonable load 5.5 Ability to spread the load of co-curricular and volunteer extra-

curricular activities reasonably among teachers 5.6 Ability to spread professional/in-service activities 6. Student Transportation 6.1 Increase or decrease in time/distance on bus for students

6.2 Increase or decrease in time/distance for families to attend school activities

6.3 Impact of any changes in bell times (positive or negative changes to school schedule)

6.4 Reduction or increase in student transportation costs 7. Extra-curricular activities 7.1 Availability of a suitable number and range of extra-curricular

activities 7.2 Accessibility to activities for a reasonable majority of students

and families 8. Community Relationship 8.1 Level of usage of school for community activities

8.2 Availability of alternate sites for community activities already at the school

8.3 Availability of school facilities for community use 8.4 Gain or loss in shared services or resources between school

and community 8.5 Gain or loss in benefits to students and school provided by the

community 8.6 Community use of excess space – can space be used in a

cost neutral or revenue generating manner? 9. Impact on receiving

school 9.1 Sufficient number of classrooms and ancillary teaching areas

9.2 Ability to schedule programs in gymnasium, sciences labs and other specialist areas

9.3 Additions or alterations required to receiving school to accommodate incoming students


6.4 Appendix D: Enrolment Projections Enrolment information was provided by SSRSB’s Human Resources Department and are the figures used for staffing and budget planning. This data has been reviewed following meetings with municipal representatives to ensure that projections are inclusive of any population trend implications in the catchment area. Table 7: Historic enrolment figures and future projections for HA

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

P-5

P 25 26 33 32 28 24 27 27 27 27 27

1 31 25 28 33 32 28 24 27 27 27 27

2 26 31 25 27 38 28 28 24 27 27 26

3 32 28 32 24 31 40 30 30 26 29 29

4 41 34 26 32 27 31 41 30 31 27 30

5 78 76 37 23 33 29 32 42 30 32 28

Total 233 220 181 171 189 180 182 180 168 169 167

% Change

-1.69% -5.58% -17.73% -5.52% 10.53% -4.76% 1.11% -1.10% -6.67% 0.60% -1.18%

6-9

6 76 83 80 66 60 67 63 63 69 66 62

7 122 93 105 106 96 83 98 91 91 105 96

8 139 120 96 106 104 103 84 100 93 93 108

9 108 136 120 96 110 105 103 85 101 94 94

Total 445 432 401 374 370 358 348 339 354 358 360

% Change

21.92% -2.92% -7.18% -6.73% -1.07% -3.24% -2.79% -2.59% 4.42% 1.13% 0.56%

Table 8: Historic enrolment figures and future projections for PRES


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 P 10 14 16 12 8 11 11 11 11 11 11

1 12 12 16 15 14 9 12 12 12 12 12

2 10 11 12 16 16 14 9 12 12 12 12

3 11 7 12 11 17 17 14 9 12 12 12

4 16 11 8 10 9 17 16 13 8 11 11

5 9 18 11 8 12 9 18 17 14 9 12

6 8 10 15 12 9 11 9 18 17 14 9

Total 76 83 90 84 85 88 89 92 86 81 79

% Change 5.56% 9.21% 8.43% -6.67% 1.19% 3.53% 1.14% 3.37% -6.52% -5.81% -2.47%

Table 9: Historic enrolment figures and future projections for PES

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 P 23 13 17 14 15 13 15 15 15 15 15

1 21 22 11 18 14 11 12 14 14 14 13

2 12 20 18 9 18 15 10 11 13 14 14

3 14 13 20 14 8 17 14 9 9 12 13

4 10 14 13 17 15 7 16 13 8 8 11

5 11 10 17 11 18 17 8 17 14 9 9

6 11 11 6 15 11 18 16 7 16 13 8

Total 102 103 102 98 99 98 91 86 89 85 83

% Change

13.33% 0.98% -0.97% -3.92% 1.02% -1.01% -7.14% -5.49% 3.49% -4.49% -2.35%


6.5 Appendix E: Staffing Allocation Forecast The following table presents the number of full-time-equivalent teaching positions (FTE’s) assigned by the application of the SSRSB staffing formula, using the projected enrolments for 2013-14, for the various options which involve PES, PRES and HA. The table includes the consolidation of PES with HA; the consolidation of PRES with HA would generate almost identical staffing data because the enrolments are practically the same. Also, it includes the consolidation of the Gr. P-5 students from PES, HA and PRES into a new elementary school and the inclusion of the Grade 6 students of the PES and PRES at HA. Table 10: Staffing Allocation Forecast for 2013-14 for PES options (option to split PES can be found below in Table 15)

PES (P-6)

PRES (P-6)

HA (P-9) PES & HA (P-9)

HA (6-9) including Gr. 6 from PES and

PRES

PES, HA, PRES, New

School (P-5)

Enrolment 86 92 519 605 364 333

Classroom teachers (elementary)

3.68 3.64 9.03 11.84 3.42 12.06

Phys. Ed. 0.33 0.36 0.88 1.12 0.37 1.12

Music 0.18 0.17 0.43 0.57 0.18 0.57

French 0.22 0.22 0.66 0.77 0.44 0.55

PST/resource 0.51 0.55 1.44 1.95 0.52 1.98

Guidance 0.30 0.25 1.00 1.30 0.80 0.75

Behavioral Support 0.11 0.12 0.69 0.80 0.49 0.44

Succeeding in Reading

0.25 0.25 0.38 0.63 0.75

Admin. 0.90 0.80 2.75 2.75 1.5 1.25

Literacy Intervention

0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11

Formula adjustments*

0.27 0.30 1.06 1.30 0.60 0.97

Jr. High Staffing** 0.0 0.0 16.28 16.28 16.28 0.0

Total Staffing 6.86 6.77 34.71 39.38 24.61 20.55

*This amount includes prep time, the Phys. Ed. grant, “flex time”, and a “scheduling” factor. The physical education grant provides a few FTE positions to be distributed across the school system. Flex time gives each school some flexibility in staffing to address particular staffing needs and the scheduling factor solves particular numerical scheduling problems in each school. ** This junior high staffing figure includes allocations for Grade 7-9 French, music, physical education, and program support/resource. Two other options for PES are (1) to transfer 50% of the students from PRES to PES and the other 50% to HA and (2) to close PES and transfer 50% of the students to PRES and 50% to HA. The total staffing


allocations for these two options would be almost equal because the enrolment of PES and PRES are about the same. The allocation for each of these options would lie about halfway between the combined staffing levels for the status quo and the consolidation of PES and PRES in a new P-6 elementary. The totals are reported in the following table. Table 11: Staffing Allocation Forecast for 2013-14 for the option to split either PES or PRES

PES PRES HA PES & 50% of PRES and vice-versa

HA & 50% of PRES or of PES

Enrolment 86 92 519 134 564

Total Allocation 6.86 6.77 34.71 9.6 38.0

6.6 Appendix F: Operational Expenditure Data The table below contains the actual audited expenditures of HA Elementary School over the past 5 years. This table was constructed by SSRSB staff in order to provide us with historical data as a benchmark for future forecasts.

Table 12: Actual operating expenditures for HA Elementary School over the past 5 years

Operating Costs 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 611800 Regular Wages CUPE 116,211 112,131 182,369 159,280 156,317 612500 Substitutes/Casuals CUPE 25,694 33,221 14,560 14,655 9,241 614600 Overtime CUPE 97 531 3,324 3,272 1,685 627150 CPP 3,697 4,410 7,403 7,145 7,127 627200 EI 2,636 2,886 4,065 3,978 3,985 627250 WCB 3,090 3,853 5,026 5,879 6,061 627400 Group Insurance 6,195 5,993 10,989 9,962 10,766 627450 Pension 7,418 7,737 12,607 8,468 8,615 627550 Benefits - Other 0 0 343 364 388 631100 Travel - In Province 0 0 0 133 91 711100 Security Systems 754 135 4,030 326 395 711200 PA Systems 0 98 156 1,080 0 711250 Fire Safety 1,047 1,895 2,069 919 1,334 785900 Garbage Removal 10,366 7,720 7,989 11,038 11,205 786100 Pest Control 104 312 286 262 524 711400 Equipment 14,547 7,302 9,351 1,950 98 711450 Equipment Repair 450 90 9,442 647 1,131 711600 Relocation Costs - Equipment/Furniture

0 175 365 0 0

721100 Sprinkler Systems 7,642 4,175 2,006 19,081 2,900 721140 Playground Maintenance 0 0 1,645 13,953 260 721160 Building Maintenance 0 2 0 0 0 721200 Cleaning Services 0 0 0 0 0 721250 Other Contracted Services 0 0 891 1,913 1,813 721350 Electrical 5,222 3,485 5,795 4,748 3,601 721400 Environmental 886 933 4,640 -1,157 3,031 721450 Windows 157 429 644 148 471 721500 Flooring 1,632 4,703 1,406 2,306 90 721550 Paving 0 8,843 0 2,725 2,662 721600 Masonry 0 0 1,979 0 0


721650 Painting 2,464 133 6,798 899 118 721700 Elevators 1,341 2,431 1,434 1,659 659 721750 Carpentry 1,496 441 21,707 5,066 2,059 721800 Roofing 0 464 0 0 0 721850 Ventilation 8,905 1,995 12,651 8,014 12,669 721900 Plumbing 6,848 2,510 10,272 7,874 2,934 786400 Supplies & Materials 6,096 2,527 2,348 4,877 12,162 721950 Oil Heating 144 2,070 4,487 6,372 4,724 784100 Telecommunications 1,162 1,163 1,154 776 644 784800 Telecommunications - Cellular

0 0 296 407 747

785200 Electricity 103,872 112,573 114,332 101,635 114,656 785400 Heating Fuel 106,997 140,032 121,894 119,164 84,083 785600 Water 0 52 0 1,593 1,957 785800 Sewer 0 0 0 0 0 786000 Snow Removal 36,850 38,823 21,535 20,794 20,678 786150 Custodial Supplies 11,014 12,921 14,356 15,524 13,360 786700 Courier/Freight/Delivery Charges

0 0 0 0 59

787100 Municipal Levys and Charges 0 0 0 0 0 814450 In Service - Non-Teachers' Non-Contract

0 0 88 29 0

990100 Recovery from other School Boards

-3,949 -4,640 -16,028 0 0

EXPENDITURES $491,086 $524,554 $610,704 $567,757 $505,299 Hebbville Elementary Operating Costs

$86,468 $92,360 $107,529 $99,967 $88,970

Hebbville Academy Operating Costs $404,619 $432,193 $503,175 $467,790 $416,329 Five Year Average 539,880 Five Year Average Hebbville Elementary

95,059

Five Year Average Hebbville Academy

444,821


6.7 Appendix G: Capital Expenditure Data Included in the table below is a list of capital expenditures over the past 5-10 years along with a list of building action items that are important for the continued operation of your school along with approximate costs for each item. These items were identified by SSRSB staff and during site visits by members of the project team. An engineer’s review/report would be required to better approximate the costs for some items.

Table 13: Historic investment, immediate capital requirements and necessary longer-term requirements

Action Item Approximate Cost

Completed in last 5-10 years

1. Furnace and circulators 2. Oil tank (above ground) 3. Fire alarm panel 4. Water conditioning system 5. T8 retrofit 6. New front entry (door) system 7. New windows 8. Back door system 9. Sewer moved over to big school septic 10. Radon extracting system 11. PA system 12. Gym and halls retiled 13. Gym has new lighting (main building) 14. Walkway for school entrance (P-6 building) 15. Had power lines moved to back of school, old

underground service had shorted out

1. $60,000 2. $30,000 3. $2,000 4. $4,000 5. TBD 6. $10,000 7. $80,000 8. $6,000 9. TBD 10. $28,500 11. $5,000 12. TBD 13. $10,000 14. $12,000 15. $150,000

$397,500

Required if HA is converted to a P-9

1. Sinks and urinals lowered in main floor washrooms 2. Drinking fountains on main floor lowered 3. Sinks and urinals in locker rooms lowered 4. Convert tables and chairs in P-4 classrooms to

accommodate younger students.

1. $50,000 2. $10,000 3. $40,000 4. $50,000 $150,000

Longer-term requirements

1. Brickwork needs to be redone and sealed 2. Driveway and parking area need to be redone 3. New electrical upgrade 4. No AHU’s, just bathroom and gym exhaust 5. Roof Replacement

1. $100,000 2. $60,000 3. $350,000 4. $250,000 5. $250,000 $1,010,000

A consultation with SSRSB IT staff provided the useful information included below regarding recommended upgrades and/or modifications to the school’s current technological infrastructure:

Table 14: Recommended technology upgrades

Action Item Approximate Cost

Recommended changes to current system*

1. Replace all unmanaged switches for managed switches

2. Add POE switches in trunk location Core Switch 3. Add network drops in ceiling of all classrooms 4. Add power in classroom ceilings for projectors

1. $3,500 2. $1,000 3. $200/room 4. $250/room

$20,700 (calculation based on 36 classrooms requiring upgrades)

*Please note that these are recommendations, not requirements.


6.8 Appendix H: Room Utilization at HA Table 16 below compares the present room use at HA to that of the original design. This table is an update to the similar table provided in the School Identification Report.

Table 15: Comparison of present room use to original design

Room Original Design Present Use Difference Classrooms 26 16 (10)

Cafeteria 1 1 0

Gymnasium 1 1 0

Library 1 1 0

Music 1 1 0

Science 2 2

Resource 3 3 0

Family Studies 1 1 0

Tech Education 1 1

Storage Room 1 1

Former 5/6 Wing* 0

Assistive Technology Centre SSRSB

1 1

SLD Specialist Center 1 1

IT Centre SSRSB 1 1

YMCA Centre, Afterschool Program

1 1

HA Fitness Centre 1 1

HA Games Room 1 1

Total Rooms 34 34 0

*Unused as classrooms or teaching areas


6.9 Appendix I: Professional Development and Representation at Regional Committees and Meetings

Table 16: Three-year average/teacher of substitute days for PD, and representation at regional committees and meetings

Average Days Total Average Days, System 8.94 Average, Schools Under 200 10.94 Average, School Over 200 6.90 School Average Enrolment Average Days BES 485 6.02 CDES 216 9.42 DJCWA 364 8.35 GRWSES 101 11.35 HA 547 7.81 MVCS 53 20.01 NRCS 134 8.35 PES 98 8.96 PRES 86 9.80


6.10 Appendix J: Identification Report for Hebbville Academy Administration

Configuration Location Principal Vice‐Principal P‐9 16147 Hwy 3, Hebbville,

NS D. Haley C. Eddy

Building Use

a. Year Built 1967 (P‐5) 1997 (6‐9)

b. Building Area 81,890 SF

c. Additions NA

d. Percentage of Bussed Students 99.5%

e. Design Classrooms 36

f. Average Number of Students per Classroom 14.9

g. Capacity (e x 25) 900

h. Current Enrolment 538

i. Projected Enrolment (5 Years) 527

j. Current Capacity Utilization (h/g x 100%) 60%

k. Projected Capacity Utilization (i/g x 100%) 59%

P-5

Bui

ldin

g

Cla

ssro

oms

Hom

eroo

m

Cla

ssro

oms

Caf

eter

ia

Mul

ti-pu

rpos

e

Libr

ary

(por

tabl

e)

Mus

ic (p

orta

ble)

Res

ourc

e/LC

Fam

ily S

tudi

es

Oth

er/U

nuse

d

Design 10 0 1 1 1 0

Used 8 1 1 1 1 1


6-9

Bui

ldin

g

Cla

ssro

oms

Hom

eroo

m

Cla

ssro

oms

Caf

eter

ia

Mul

ti-pu

rpos

e

Libr

ary

(por

tabl

e)

Mus

ic (p

orta

ble)

Res

ourc

e/LC

Fam

ily S

tudi

es

Oth

er/U

nuse

d

Design 26 1 1 1 1 3 1

Used 16 1 1 1 1 3 1 10

Community Use

As per Facility Use Policy

YMCA after school program

Capital Construction Plans

There are currently no approved capital construction projects for this school. If the school remains open capital investment will be required. Property Services Building Condition Index

Elem 6‐9

Accessibility 7/10 10/10

Cladding 8/10 9/10

Doors & Windows 8/10 9/10

Grounds 8/10 9/10

Electrical 7/10 9/10

Fire Alarm & P/A 8/10 9/10

Heating 8/10 8/10

Interior 7/10 9/10

Plumbing 7/10 9/10

Roofing 7/10 8/10

Ventilation 5/10 9/10

Total % 74% 89%


Transportation There would be no transportation impact if students were to move from the older building to the newer building. If broader changes were made which involved Pentz Elementary School, Petite Riviere Elementary School or Newcombville Elementary School there would be implications for transportation. There would also be transportation implications if grades 6‐9 attended school in Bridgewater.

Enrolments Past Enrolments Projected Enrolments

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

# 678 652 582 545 559 538 530 519 522 527 527

% change ‐1.31 ‐3.83 ‐10.74 ‐6.36 2.57 ‐3.76 ‐1.49 ‐2.08 0.58 0.96 0.00

*Grade 5’s moved back to Newcombville from Hebbville.

Trends

Past Enrolments Projected Enrolments Board School Board School

5‐Year ‐10.39% ‐20.65% 5‐Year

‐9.45%

‐2.04%

10‐Year ‐22.84% ‐30.49%

School Staff 2011/12

NSTU‐Teachers 38.9

Administrative Assistants 2

Program Support Assistants 8.82

Library Staff 0.4

Custodial Staff 4.75


Community Population Trends

Municipality of the District of Lunenburg

Age 2001 2006 2011

0‐19 5,885 5,170

20‐44 8,150 7,075

45‐64 7,450 8,595

65‐74 2,220 2,465

75 & over 1,860 1,860

Median Age 42.3 45.7

Total 25,565 25,165 25,118

*Community population data will be updated when available from Statistics Canada

Program: The ability as a facility to deliver the public school program

With respect to the P‐5 facility, the obvious physical or facility limitations that define the limitations are the lack of a modern gymnasium and a cafeteria in the current building. There is no evidence to suggest that Hebbville Academy will be unable to deliver the PSP successfully in Grades P‐5.

The 6‐9 building which is located adjacent to the elementary school, is a modern facility with no immediate barriers to PSP delivery.

Costs

Annual total operating costs per square foot – average previous two years

2009/2010 2010/2011 Average Square Feet $ Per Sq. Ft. $623,205 $740,315 $681,760 81,890 $8.33

Annual utility costs per square foot for 2010‐2011

Electricity Fuel Water Sewer Total Square Feet $ Per Sq. Ft. $101,635 $119,164 $1,593 NA $222,393 81,890 $2.72


Summary 1. The School Utilization Study from February 2008 recommended that a facility assessment be

carried out on Hebbville Elementary School, Pentz Elementary School and Petite Riviere Elementary School. This study was completed in March 2009 and found that Hebbville Elementary School could continue to function for 5 more years with capital upgrades of $113,000 or 20 more years with capital upgrades of $999,500.

2. There are some accessibility issues with the old building including a stage that is not accessible.

3. The options for Hebbville Academy include:

a. Close the elementary building and move all students into the main building

b. Replace Hebbville Elementary School, Pentz Elementary School, Petite Riviere Elementary

School and perhaps Newcombville Elementary Schools with one new school

c. Make the new building a P‐5 or P‐6 configuration and have middle school students attend Bridgewater Junior‐Senior High School.

4. There would be staff savings in Teachers, Administrative Assistants, Administration, and Custodial

staff if the old building was closed. There would also be operational cost savings. 5. The elementary building could be converted to board office space.

Methodology 1. Building use, property services building condition index, and community use information was

gathered through school visits and interviews with school administrators by the Director of Operations.

2. Transportation comments are based on a preliminary analysis by board transportation staff.

3. Community population trends data was sourced from Statistics Canada. 4. Program comments were prepared by Programs staff based on the ability of the facility to deliver the

public school program.

5. Facility operating costs and utility costs were collected from board financial records and utility cost sheets.

6. Enrolment Projection Methodology

Enrolment projections have been calculated for grades 1‐12 by:

a) Moving students ahead by a grade; and b) Adjusting the grade level enrolment in a school by the historical rate of change

(average of the last five years) from one grade to another a. Where the rate of change has been affected by an anomalous year(s), the rate of change has

been adjusted to remove the effect. Enrolment projections have been calculated for grade primary by:

a) Calculating the average grade primary enrolment for the last five years a. Where the average grade primary enrolment has been affected by an anomalous year(s), the

projected enrolment has been adjusted to remove the effect.


Appendix K: Glossary of Financial Terms

Operational Expenditures: Those expenditures specific to the ongoing operations of an organization – that typically provide benefit or usefulness for a period of less than one year. Examples include labor, benefits, repairs, and utilities. Property Services Expenditures: Those operational expenditures specific to the ongoing activities, repairs, and maintenance of buildings, equipment and property. Examples include minor building repairs, snow removal, utilities. Capital Expenditures: Those expenditures incurred to obtain, maintain or extend the life of physical assets that will provide benefits or usefulness for a period greater than one year. Examples would include a new building or major renovations to a building. Hogg Formula: A mathematical formula the Province of Nova Scotia uses to allocate the funding for school boards, among all of the school boards. Hogg Formula Square Footage Funding Reduction: School Boards are allocated funding via the Hogg Formula to address the property services costs of schools. This calculation is based both on square footage of the facility and the number of students in it. When a school is closed the school board loses that portion of the funding allocated to it based on the square footage of that school. Hogg Formula Principal Funding Reduction: School Boards are allocated funding via the Hogg Formula to address the costs of Principals. When one of these positions is eliminated the school board will lose the funding that had been allocated for that position. Small Isolated School Teaching Funding Reduction: This is a Hogg Formula funding calculation due to being designated as a small isolated school – and is related to teaching positions. Small Isolated School Funding Reduction – Additional: This is a Hogg Formula funding calculation due to being designated as a small isolated school – and is related to square footage. Transition Period Funding Offset: Because the Hogg Formula was changed in many ways starting in the 2012/2013 fiscal year – the Province has decided to implement the full impact of these changes over a period of time – which will be at least three years. This is referred to as the Transition Period. To date the grandfathering of the small isolated school funding factor is for calculation purposes only. We have no confirmation that this will change in the future.

www.deloitte.ca Deloitte, one of Canada's leading professional services firms, provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services through more than 8,000 people in 56 offices. Deloitte operates in Québec as Samson Bélair/Deloitte & Touche s.e.n.c.r.l. Deloitte & Touche LLP, an Ontario Limited Liability Partnership, is the Canadian member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.

Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms.

© Deloitte & Touche LLP and affiliated entities.

1

Hebbville Elementary School – Identification Report

Hebbville Academy

School Identification Report

Received by the South Shore Regional School Board

February 22, 2012

2


Hebbville Academy

Administration Configuration Location Principal Vice-Principal

P-9 16147 Hwy 3, Hebbville,

NS

D. Haley C. Eddy

Building Use

a. Year Built 1967 (P-5) 1997 (6-9)

b. Building Area 17,500 SF

c. Additions NA

d. Percentage of Bussed Students 99.5%

e. Number of Classrooms 25

f. Average Number of Students per Classroom 21.5

g. Capacity (e x 25) 625

h. Current Enrolment 538

i. Projected Enrolment (5 Years) 527

j. Current Capacity Utilization (h/g x 100%) 86%

k. Projected Capacity Utilization (i/g x 100%) 84%

Reg

ula

r

Cla

ssro

om

s

Caf

eter

ia

Gym

nas

ium

Lab

Lib

rary

(po

rtab

le)

Mu

sic

(po

rtab

le)

Mu

lti-

Pu

rpo

se

Res

ou

rce/

LC

Tech

Ed

Fam

ily S

tud

ies

P-5 8 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0

6-9 17 1 1 2 1 1 0 3 1 1

3


Community Use

As per Facility Use Policy.

YMCA after school program

Capital Construction Plans

There are currently no approved capital construction projects for this school. If the school

remains open capital investment will be required.

Property Services Building Condition Index

Elem 6-9

Accessibility 7/10 10/10

Cladding 8/10 9/10

Doors & Windows 8/10 9/10

Grounds 8/10 9/10

Electrical 7/10 9/10

Fire Alarm & P/A 8/10 9/10

Heating 8/10 8/10

Interior 7/10 9/10

Plumbing 7/10 9/10

Roofing 7/10 8/10

Ventilation 5/10 9/10

Total % 74% 89%

Transportation

4


Enrolments

Past Enrolments Projected Enrolments

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# 678 652 582 545 559 538 530 519 522 527

% change -1.31 -3.83 -10.74 -6.36 2.57 -3.76 -1.49 -2.08 0.58 0.96

*Grade 5’s moved back to Newcombville from Hebbville.

Trends

Past Enrolments Projected Enrolments

Board School Board School 5-Year -10.39% -20.25%

5-Year -9.45% -2.04% 10-Year -22.84% -32.5%

School Staff 2011

NSTU-Teachers 38.9

Administrative Assistants 2

Program Support Assistants 8.82

Library Staff 0.4

Custodial Staff 4.75

Community Population Trends

Municipality of the District of Lunenburg

Age 2001 2006

0-19 5,885 5,170

20-44 8,150 7,075

45-64 7,450 8,595

65-74 2,220 2,465

75 & over 1,860 1,860

Median Age 42.3 45.7

5


Program: The ability as a facility to deliver the public school program

The obvious physical or facility limitations that define the current location are the lack of a

modern gymnasium and a cafeteria in the current building. There is no evidence to suggest that

Hebbville Academy will be unable to deliver the PSP successfully in Grades P-5.

Costs

Annual total operating costs per square foot – average previous two years

2008/2009 2009/2010 Average Square Feet $ Per Sq. Ft.

$524,554 $610,704 $567,629 81,890 $6.93

Annual utility costs per square foot for 2009-2010

Electricity Fuel Water Sewer Total Square Feet $ Per Sq. Ft.

$114,332 $121,894 NA NA $236,226 81,890 $2.88

Recommendation

○ Further review is recommended

○ Further review is not recommended

Comments

1. The School Utilization Study from February 2008 recommended that a facility

assessment be carried out on Hebbville Elementary, Pentz Elementary and Petite Riviere

Elementary. This study was completed in March 2009 and found that Hebbville

Elementary could continue to function for 5 more years with capital upgrades of

$113,000 or 20 more years with capital upgrades of $999,500.

2. There are some accessibility issues with the school including a stage that is not

accessible.

6


3. One option would be to close the elementary building and move all students into the

main building.

4. A second option would be a new school to replace Hebbville, Pentz, Petite Riviere and

perhaps Newcombville Elementary Schools.

5. There would be staff savings in Teachers, Administrative Assistants, Administration, and

Custodial staff if the school were closed. There would also be operational cost savings.

Methodology

1. Building use, property services building condition information, and community us

information was gathered through school visits and interviews with school administrators.

2. Transportation comments are based on a preliminary analysis by board transportation

staff.

3. Community population trends data was sourced from Statistics Canada.

4. Program comments were prepared by Programs staff based on the ability of the facility

to deliver the public school program.

5. Facility operating costs and utility costs were collected from board financial records and

utility cost sheets.

6. Enrolment Projection Methodology

Enrolment projections have been calculated for grades 1-12 by:

a) Moving students ahead by a grade; and

b) Adjusting the grade level enrolment in a school by the historical rate of change (average

of the last five years) from one grade to another

a. Where the rate of change has been effected by an anomalous year(s), the rate of

change has been adjusted to remove the effect.

Enrolment projections have been calculated for grade primary by:

a) Calculating the average grade primary enrolment for the last five years

a. Where the average grade primary enrolment has effected by an anomalous

year(s), the projected enrolment has been adjusted to remove the effect.

Documents

Impact Assessment Report: Hebbville Academy